I tried to ignore it, but that blog just pulls you in; some bits are hilarious. Here is how he has used the incident where Chris Froome crashed into the back of an official TourDeFrance moto, as evidence for the menace cyclists pose:

Quote

Road Race Cycling is unique in that there is no entrance fee for spectators, unlike other major sports and entertainment events because they are held on long stretches of public road where it isn't possible to control the public.

What these cyclists forget is, that they are riding vehicles on public roads and that it is their duty to avoid accidents and for their self protection too.

The principle must be that others must come first and only ride at a speed and distance at which you are able to stop safely. The motorcyclist clearly did exactly that.

These cyclists, including Froome, failed to apply those rules despite very close and confined conditions which included many members of the public.

This crash happened because cyclists were cycling too fast and dangerously among public on public roads. It really is that simple.

It's a race, dude!!!

Logged

Has never ridden RAAM---------No.11 Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

If you're involved with enough cycling events you'll know people who've died on them, or people who are connected, who've died in other cycling circumstances. For all that the health benefits of exercise outweigh the accidents, it doesn't make it any easier.

Chris has been at the centre of cycling long enough to have seen that. It's one thing to rationalise the loss of people you encounter in your career or pastime, another to come to terms with the loss of your own mother in the same pastime.

His appreciation of his mother was very moving.

Let's not forget Keith Boardman, a very valued member of the cycling community, as a participant and coach.

I'm also heartened by the way that Chris's friend, Jens Voigt, has stepped in to fill the void in the Tour coverage.

For this brave enough to go exploring the murky depths at the bottom of the gene pool, the vile Keith Peat has been quick to gloat http://www.driveeastmidlands.com.

Good god. An A1 grade certifiable loon. It's not often that one single person (apparently) can generate quite so much contradictory nonsense. Maybe the internet isn't such a good idea. But for the wonders of modern technology people like this would be restricted to wandering the streets wearing a sandwich board.

I tried to ignore it, but that blog just pulls you in; some bits are hilarious. Here is how he has used the incident where Chris Froome crashed into the back of an official TourDeFrance moto, as evidence for the menace cyclists posemost motorist crashes into cyclist incidents could be summarized:

Quote

What these cyclmotorists forget is, that they are riddriving vehicles on public roads and that it is their duty to avoid accidents and for their self protection too.

The principle must be that others must come first and only ride drive at a speed and distance at which you are able to stop safely. The motorcyclist clearly did exactly that.

These cyclmotorists, including Froome, failed to apply those rules despite very close and confined conditions which included many members of the public.

This crash happened because cyclists were cycling too fast and dangerously among public on public roads. It really is that simple.

I'm not clear why it's referred to an 'accident.' Using your phone while driving is a deliberate act.

Anyway, we got the answer, derisory. As Boardman, with admirable restraint, points out there's no other activity than driving that lets us behave so dangerously and face little or no consequence for those actions.

I suppose it's a form of Stockholm syndrome that I was surprised he got a custodial sentence at all. What was the perverting the cause of justice charge about for him and his wife (of which they were acquitted) - lying about the phone calls?

If I recall, they tried to delete their call histories. Nice people. Only stumbled upon remorse when it was explained to them that taking the plea would mean a minimal sentence. I've no idea what the point of putting anyone in prison for 30 weeks is (which will be, what, ten weeks actual time).

I completely agree with Boardman though, it's too late sending people to prison after the fact. But that said, the consistent message from this kind of derisory sentencing, like calling it 'careless driving', is that driving is an activity far removed from the standard expectations of responsibility.

If I recall, they tried to delete their call histories. Nice people. Only stumbled upon remorse when it was explained to them that taking the plea would mean a minimal sentence. I've no idea what the point of putting anyone in prison for 30 weeks is (which will be, what, ten weeks actual time).

I completely agree with Boardman though, it's too late sending people to prison after the fact. But that said, the consistent message from this kind of derisory sentencing, like calling it 'careless driving', is that driving is an activity far removed from the standard expectations of responsibility.

Whilst I totally agree with the bolded text, I think you need to have served 10 weeks jail time to comment on its leniency. Would you prefer they chop his phone hand off?

Logged

Has never ridden RAAM---------No.11 Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

If I recall, they tried to delete their call histories. Nice people. Only stumbled upon remorse when it was explained to them that taking the plea would mean a minimal sentence. I've no idea what the point of putting anyone in prison for 30 weeks is (which will be, what, ten weeks actual time).

I completely agree with Boardman though, it's too late sending people to prison after the fact. But that said, the consistent message from this kind of derisory sentencing, like calling it 'careless driving', is that driving is an activity far removed from the standard expectations of responsibility.

Whilst I totally agree with the bolded text, I think you need to have served 10 weeks jail time to comment on its leniency. Would you prefer they chop his phone hand off?

Just his thumbs for a first offence...you can move through an increasing scale of body parts for repeat offences.